At 10:28 AM -0500 9/4/97, CWestf5155@aol.com wrote:
>
>My position is that if John intended a word play, he would have signalled it
>by saying clearly KAI ALLOS QEOS HN O LOGOS. In fact, that would have a very
>nice ring to it. If that is what John meant, I think it would have been
>irresistable.

You mean as in 14:16: KAGW ERWTHSW TON PATERA KAI ALLON PARAKLHTON DWSEI
hUMIN ... Interesting. That ALLON is something I've always been troubled
by; I've even wanted to understand ALLON as a substantive (pronoun) object
of DWSEI and view PARAKLHTON as an appositive (or predicate accusative) to
ALLON. Might that not also be a possible way of reading KAI ALLOS QEOS HN
hO LOGOS? I think that somewhat more "normal" (if there IS such a beast)
Greek for this nuance would be KAI QEOS TIS HN hO LOGOS.

>Participants in this discussion have argued about the grammatic possiblities
>of the clause in isolation at length. We should also consider the logical
>probabilities as far as its immediate literary context is concerned. There
>is also the cultural contextual issue that Paul Dixon has already raised.

I think this is quite true, but it has been called to attention also by
others and very nicely by Rolf in his most recent post under the other
heading, "Re: Jn 1:1, Colwell, Nelson Stdy Bible." Personally I think that
the context resolves the issue beyond doubt, BUT a lot of the argument
really has turned on the question of the grammar of that little clause and
the significance of the anarthrous noun QEOS before the copula. I'm not
sure the questions involved there have been fully resolved as yet--or
whether it's possible to achieve a consensus.